THE BBC has been asked to explain why it has not reported on a large-scale anti-Brexit rally in the centre of London …
Whilst the BBC is impartial and independent and whatever etc. Key positions have been packed with Tory Party supporters/donors/friends.
It’s no surprise they toe the government line, especially for their fellow ToriesI feel like the BBC’s “aura” of impartiality makes it all the more dangerous when it does occasionally engage in propaganda. A lot of regular folks put a lot of trust in the BBC.
Yup.
Similar to the “equal airtime” or “show both sides” when it comes to science.
It puts unscientific opinions alongside scientific theory as if they are equal.The only thing I can say in favour of the BBC is that it seems like the majority of people feel it’s coverage is favourable to “the other side”.
So, while we may be saying “BBC is clearly biased” because of things like this, I guarantee there are people that we don’t agree with saying exactly the same about other topics.
So the situation is probably not as bad as it seems.It does seem the majority of these “scandals” are about the BBC acting in favour of the Westminster UK government. But maybe that just the ones I actually see.
I’m a little hesitant to put much stock in conservatives’ claims of bias, because plain factual reporting tends to strike a lot of them as biased. Reality is biased against modern conservatism.
I don’t think the BBC is the worst by any means. But a couple of years ago, they did come out with one of the most egregiously misleading articles I’ve ever seen with regards to transgender people. Very obviously deliberate in its misinformation and even including proven lies about contacting sources. And to this day the BBC stands by it and has dismissed complaints.
So yeah, worth being wary.
Very good points.
I just wanted to temper the discussion a bit, and just check that I wasn’t getting too carried away, echo-chambered or whatever.
Having done that, I still agree with you. I don’t think the BBC is impartial or unbiased.
It no longer is impartial. It just reports what it’s told.
It’s not the job of a journalist to report that someone says it’s raining. They have to stick their head out of the window and check, and then report what they find. They have forgotten this and it’s shameful.
Non-Brit here. Can someone explain to me what makes up a Tory, and why?
Mostly hate and misery, with a good dash of racism.
For a more serious answer, “tory” is the nickname for a member of the Conservative party, the UK’s major centre-right party. Much like in the US, they’ve been shifting further right in the past few decades and focusing more on “culture war” BS.
A Tory is the Conservative Party.
They are to the right. Although, if it’s US politics you are used to they would probably be considered center or old-school right - not this new Right bullshit that’s prevalent these daysSo, their party revolves around thinly veiled plans to divert money to the rich, and tighten their control over the common people?
Pretty much.
Their whole deal is “fiscal responsibility”, which apparently means applying austerity for about a decade and cutting huge amounts of public service budgets.Mild tinfoil hat
Things like the amazing NHS end up underfunded (and leveraged as a bargaining tool, like when Brexit would give the NHS 350m extra per week). Obviously waiting lists get longer, some people maybe start seeking private care for some things. Then the Tories can turn around and say “the NHS is broken, people are using private care, we should sell off the remaining NHS and do the American thing. Think of the tax cuts!”.
/Mild tinfoil hatThey also hate immigrants, want the old Rule Britannia/British Empire thing back, think dealing with climate change is untenable, a whole bunch of fun stuff like that.
Jeremy Hunt, current Chancellor of the Exchequer, literally co-authored a book on how to dismantle the NHS and replace it with a health-insurance based system.
He was Secretary for Health at one point too, and his policies didn’t exactly rule out that he might be following the game-plan of that book.
There’s no tinfoil hat needed here. The Tories are all but open about what they’re doing at this point.
There’s no tinfoil hat needed here. The Tories are all but open about what they’re doing at this point.
I know, but a part of me has to believe that the government is working for the benefit of all it’s citizens.
Otherwise, what the fuck am I doing here? The future is bleak enough with hyper-consumerism, class/wealth gaps and climate change.
Sounds very American!
Yeh, but less cult and more tea, crumpets and stuff upper lips
Torys have been buying up the land that NHS hospitals are on and jacking up their rents
…then railing on and on about the ever rising costs of health care
Playing the long game until some crisis comes and then poof, welcome to the American Health* care system, you give us everything you own and we’ll give you 3 months to live. Maybe.
And forget about dental and vision. That’s for rich people.
Seriously Neoliberalism is anti-nationalist. The rich fucking despise regular people and do everything they can to, first, ensure that they are getting the government contracts, and then B, looting all that money, saying government doesn’t work and dismantling us back to fuedalism.
Russia ain’t the only country with Oligarchs anymore!
The Tory are a nickname for the right-wing conservative party.
Historically it has been used in a somewhat derogatory manner. If somebody is a Tory then they tend to engage in more right wing policies than a Conservative who tends to be more center-right. Although technically there’s no actual difference and they’re all the same party.
Anyway they’ve lately started calling themselves Tory in a weird “let’s take the word back” way, so you can more or less now just use the two words interchangeably.
Internally they have a lot of infighting about this, because some of the Backbenches (politicians who are members of the party but are not actually in government, think the equivalent of senators in the US) are unhappy with the parties direction because they feel that going full on lunatic right wing nut job might harm their chances of getting reelected. And based on current polling data it would seem that they are correct.
Tory originally came from an Irish word meaning robber/outlaw. 350 years on and they seem to be attempting to live up to it.
Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster, but I feel like it’s time to rebrand the cause. The battle is over and the war is lost. There is no point to being anti-Brexit because the Brexit happened. You can’t stop it without a tardis (or a Delorean, for my fellow Americans). Rejoining the EU will require an entirely new set of applications and negotiations. Somebody should come up with a new brand and some catchy slogans. Brexit was a brilliant piece of marketing, for example.
Like Breunion but better than that.
As an EU citizen, I’m very conflicted about the UK just rejoining the European Union.
Your administration made the weird decision to lean on a marginal difference on a referendum, and left with a whole lot of fuss and customised paperwork. Who’s to say you won’t do it again?
While I do like a stronger Union, the UK will likely try to get back the position they had before (with all kinds of exceptions), but the only way the UK should be allowed to rejoin (in my opinion), should be with a full commitment, not just “we’re sort of joining but also not”.
Didn’t the EU say that if we were to rejoin, the UK would have to adopt the Euro and all the other shit that the rest of the EU got when they joined. I don’t think we’re really in a position to dig our feet in and demand exceptions that we threw in the EU’s face when we left.
Right. If the UK tries to rejoin they’re going to get no favors from the rest of the EU, as an example to other member states that you can’t just play hokey pokey with a continental union. The UK will be miffed as a response. It’ll potentially take decades for a deal to work out for the UK to rejoin the EU, if that’s even its form at that point.
As a Brit, I fully support the idea that we should rejoin with full commitment. No way do I want a repeat performance where we can be taken out by a minority of gullible idiots.
When it was clear the referendum was going to be actioned, I never understood why the UK government didn’t just try to implement a move to the EEA or similar satellite level. It would satisfy the terms of the referendum entirely. The referendum was to leave the European union. The wording was very succinct.
The UK probably would never have joined schengen (that’s really of hugest benefit to mainland Europe), we never took the European parliament seriously (you can argue that we should have, but we sent fucking Farage, so. No, we never took it seriously).
But the common trading area and freedom of movement did benefit us (and the BS use of it to get votes from the right was filled with lies of course). Which (as I understand it) is the main features of being part of the EEA. It still of course means we’d need to adopt trade related laws of course (Oh my gaawwwd our sovereignty!!!). But we already were and it didn’t hurt us one bit!
But no, it had to be full brexit or nothing (for some inexplicable reason).
Yes, before people say anything. We’d need to be admitted into the EEA. I know that. But it wasn’t even tried! That’s the annoying thing. It was rejected straight off the bat.
but we sent fucking Farage
Ha, that name only stuck around because of the BBC Radio 4 comedy podcast. Brexit caused a whole lot of ruckus, but the comedy shows were continuous gold.
That was the argument I heard a lot of from neolibs leading up to the referendum - “y’know, Norway and Switzerland aren’t in the EU and they’re doing fine”.
I do wonder if Cameron had stuck it out if that’s what we would have aimed for, rather than leaving it up to the “Brexit means Brexit” crew.
This is an entirely reasonable position. The (narrow) majority of the UK voting public has the relationship inverted; they think the EU needs them far more than they need the EU.
There’s no way to come to a reasonable lasting outcome in negotiations.
Much like it makes all the sense in the world for the rest of NATO not to trust the US any more.
Yeah, I’m just saying they need a new slant, a rallying cry. Rejoin just doesn’t have that same catchy feel to it.
I read you’re comment as you saying they should be pro-rejoin instead of anti-brexit.
Essentially, yes, but it’s more branding than belief. I’m sure the people in the protests understand the difference, but the news media is calling them anti-Brexit, as though you can oppose leaving after you’ve left.
Sorry could you put that on the side of a bus please?
Brenter?
Brea culpa.
That’s good!
I like Bunion
Hmmmm… it does roll off the tongue, but leaves a sour taste.
Brunion?
Sounds like a version of the classic film The Fly but with an onion instead of a fly.
Bru(h)nion
Maybe yours does.
Brepair
Bre-ntry or Bre-united.
Bre-united might work, it kinda sounds like a football team, Brits love that!
Bre-united and it feels so good.
I have a bit of a weird opinion on this. I was very anti brexit. I make multiple trips to Europe every year, probably 4-5 at least. I benefit nothing from leaving the union. My passport is filling with stamps at an alarming rate.
But, to rejoin now after it is done. To rejoin with the basic requirements of a new state rejoining? I don’t think it’s as great an idea of remaining when we had the perks of an early joining larger state. Certainly you’ll find a lot more resistance to replacing the pound with the Euro (I actually could care less, but I’m in the minority here) than there was to leaving on the original terms.
Also, I don’t think Europe should have to put up with us (as a whole, the country I mean) whiners. Our bed has been made by the stupidly defined referendum, and the subsequent disastrous implementation and now, we should just suck it up and lie in it.
The sentiment I hear around me is that you have been lied to.
We have kept the lights on, like many of you asked, and we are looking forward to welcoming a new humorous generation.
Sure, it is not going to be under the same conditions. Things have moved around when you left. Empty voids have been filled. Regardless, I’d love for us to see the propaganda of the time for what it was, propaganda and lies, and to bring the actors and platforms responsible for willingly spreading lies to their knees.
Together we stand stronger in a strong Europe, and reuniting is a sign of Europe’s resilience to external influences.
I wasn’t lied to. Actually, the way this stuff was spread on social media was the whole cambridge analytica thing. I never saw ANY of the ads/sponsored posts etc. I was not the demographic, I guess. What I did see was weird opinions and people that never had a problem with the EU suddenly talking about sovereignty etc starting around a month before and getting much louder a week or so before. They targeted the advertising so tightly that those that weren’t close to the middle or on the side of leaving already never ever saw an advert/sponsored post or any other advertising. It was spookily well executed.
I remember initially I was certain it would be a landslide remain. Around a week before I was very concerned it wouldn’t be any more, just based on the shift of public sentiment.
Our laws are currently fairly inline with EU laws. It’s less work to fully align them now than in 10 years, when the Tories have fully dismantled workers/privacy/consumer/human rights.
And I have no issue with the Euro. We still get to do our own artwork on the notes/coins.
We clearly need immigration to cover the jobs people don’t want to do, despite the fact that the “they took our jobs” group would whine about work they personally don’t want to do being done by others.
It would simplify and clear up our trade, just-in-time logistics for all manor of things, and likely put the UK in a better position as an “English speaking HQ of Europe” for companies.Ultimately tho, theres going to be a decade of shit to wade through before any potential benefits of Brexit actually come around.
This was a huge talking point about Scottish Independence (“yeh, but you’d be fucked” “oh sure, but after 5-10 years we would be in a better position”). It’s fair to say the same applies to brexit (although the benefits of brexit are a lot less apparent to me)All of the benefits (so far as I can tell) were always theoretical. We can make our own trade deals. Except, previously trade deals were made on our behalf as part of a trading bloc that included us, Germany, France, Italy, The nordics (mostly via the EEA) and the rest of Europe. How was there ever a serious expectation we’d get a better deal as a fraction of that bargaining power? So, a theoretical benefit that’s extremely unlikely to pan out to our advantage.
Taking control of our borders? How has that worked out for us? Not too well so far it seems.
Yeah, it’s crap. But I feel like some more of those brexit supporting business owners need to eat some more humble pie before we ever try to go back.
I don’t buy tunnocks, dyson, or go to a weatherspoon.
No doubt there are other companies I don’t realise were pro-brexit.I know the whole “ooh look at you and your personal boycott changing the world” bullshit. Fuck it, I’m still doing it. This is my hill of beans to die on.
It’s like recycling, reducing consumption etc. Yeh, big companies are contributing more to climate change and they really are the ones that need to change. But I can’t hate on them if I’m not trying to help the situation.
I think the point I realised how out of step I am with most brexiters was when someone argued with me that now we’re out of the EU “they can take all their bloody decimalised currency with them!”
I was completely flabbergasted that someone would still be mad about an objectively better system that’s been the norm for over 50 years at this point.
I like Breunion a lot, for what it’s worth.
I can’t wait for brentrance or maybe brenetration?
You’re right, but needing a catchy slogan and a bit of anger to get us to do something with massive consequences is a stark reminder that at the end of the day we’re just dumb apes.
Brexit 2: Brentrance
The mascot can be a guy named Brent
Electric Brigaloo?
BR-Back
Brentrence
They’ve been at this for years now tbh. Thousands protested Austerity outside the Tory Conference, and not a peep about it on the Beeb. At least they barely even hide the partisan support for the government now.
They also did it with anti lockdown protests. You might disagree with the protestors in that case, but the Beeb shouldn’t be deciding what it covers based on whether the issue.
I don’t think they’re “supporting” the government - I think they’re cowed by the government.
The net result is the same, agreed. I’m mostly talking about motivations.
The tories would gut the BBC like the opening scene of Dune (the film), each employee drained for sacrificial blood and the party faithful smeared in it as rite of indoctrination.
That’s nowhere near the opening scene.
Are you talking about the Sardaukar on Salusa Secondus?
oh yeah, I was… Guess it’s time to lay off the spice for me.
I for one am shocked that a state run media organization is biased in favor of the establishment. Shocked!
Why is BBC going shit now? I loved their impartial coverage but now this is giving me second thoughts on what they have covered till now has been truly impartial.
Not sure if you’re joking or not, but the BBC is always biased towards the current UK government.
That’s not to say they are bad at reporting news, you just need to be aware of the biases and tendencies when reading their reporting.
Impartial coverage from the BBC, when?
Impartial coverage? More like Imperial coverage!
The BBC hasn’t been impartial for at least 20 years. Not only that, but they’re the most transphobic publicly funded institution in the UK.
The BBC hasn’t been impartial since it was established, it’s sole purpose was to support the British State, that was it’s entire purpose of being created in the first place. I mean it’s not like there was never any news in England prior
Can you expand on that? They’re my main news source and I’ve never got transphobic vibes from them.
There’s an entire Wikipedia article on one of their more egregious cases, where they platformed a genocidal rapist cis lesbian who was claiming all trans women are rapists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22We%27re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women%22
OK, that’s one really article that was in bad faith, but I would argue the topic has journalistic value. But it should have been more nuanced.
Does that make the entire bbc transphobic? I am in full support of trans rights (I have a gender fluid child), but not everything is 100% black and white (cfr gender ;)) , one bad article doesn’t make the entire bbc transphobic.
I gave it as one example, there’s dozens more articles like it. They’ve been pushing anti-trans articles for years at this point. And it’s been noted by LGBT media and others that entire time. Some examples:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nv97/lgbtq-employees-are-quitting-the-bbc-because-they-say-its-transphobic
https://www.dazeddigital.com/politics/article/55468/1/the-bbc-has-been-called-out-for-transphobia-by-a-human-rights-group
https://www.them.us/story/bbc-latest-transphobic-screed-is-a-mockery-of-journalism
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/14/bbc-impartiality-row-gary-lineker-trans-article/Fair enough. Most articles are still about the original article, but it does seem the bcc (or at least the dinosaurs in control) has its own (shitty) trans agenda… .
Thanks for not attacking me, but giving actual info. Appreciate it.
I’ll certainly be more wary about the bbc in the future.
where they platformed a genocidal rapist cis lesbian
Genocidal? They’re mass murdering a special group of people? How have I not heard of this person?
Don’t embellish the point. It completely undermines what you’re saying.
People who refuse to acknowledge forced sterilisation as genocide are genuinely some of the worst type of people.
I don’t think you should be sterilised but I do think you should stop being such an ignoramus.
Somebody is forcibly sterilising people? How have I not heard of this person?
Advocating for genocidal acts still makes one genocidal.
There is an absolute wealth of articles online about it, but here’s a couple points to get you started
Thanks for this. Really opened my eyes.
What are some more central/impartial news source for international coverage?
Honestly? There isn’t really one. I think the best you can do is expose yourself to various sources and apply a very, very, very high dose of skepticism to everything you read.
Brits don’t realise how bad BBC’s coverage always was. They covered for Saville, their foreign reports are a joke for most part and they are more of a propoganda for the government.
wow British state owned media is acting on behalf of the state? craaaazy
Except that’s not how it works.
They’re not state-owned they’re state-funded, there’s a difference.
If the state owns a public park like a national park they’re not allowed to just say oh will we own it so we can tear it all down and build a shopping mall on it. Funding it is not the same as owning and controlling it.
So yeah there is something for them to answer. Because they are violating their mandate.
The government do appear to have a hand in picking board members and executives though, and it’s regulated by the govt-appointed body Ofcom.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64383742
(And yes, I’m aware of the irony of posting a BBC news link)
Yeah, so government owned
Yes but it’s not supposed to, it’s not expected to be a government mouthpiece.
Its reputation for impartiality is also working as expected.
Just because that’s not how it works hasn’t prevented conservatives from trying to control them.
See Stephen Harper’s efforts to control the CBC in Canada when he was PM, and Pierre Poilievre’s (same party) promise to scrap it entirely.
Ah yes, because funding never comes with any strings attached.
Not legally.
They are supposed to be impartial if the government do something stupid (I know hard to believe) They’re supposed to report on it.
There’s a whole thing where the conservatives have put Stooges in place. Trying to turn the BBC into agovernment propaganda platform isn’t actually legal. So yeah it’s a surprise it is happening.
The original comment seems to suggest that no one should be shocked that the BBC is government controlled but actually it is pretty awful and shocking. It is a surprise, and it isn’t something to be expected as the comment seems to suggest it should be.
Things do not look good on the inside too. The world is changing dramatically right now and if hypothetically the brits were to rejoin, I doubt that this would have a significant impact. Last five years have been crazy for all people of Europe. I would argue that this has been the case for the last 13 years. Financial policies that led the EU in a downward spiral and the UK out of EU
Is there any good, current article listing the economical consequences of brexit for the UK?
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/impact-brexit-uk-economy-reviewing-evidence
This is a fairly recent article.
thenational.scot having a pop at the BBC? Who would have thought.
Sounds like a legitimate pop, is that ok?
Honestly, the BBC never report on protests, and the people behind the protests always get mad about it. They just aren’t newsworthy unless something happens besides the fact of a protest.
Essentially, this story is free advertising for the protest.
